Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legacy B Estates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parowan planners press developer for details on Legacy B Estates manufactured‑home PUD; no recommendation reached
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a revised site plan and lease framework for the Legacy B Estates planned‑unit development March 19 but did not reach a recommendation, citing outstanding questions about ownership, lease and resale mechanics, and code classification (mobile home park vs. manufactured‑home subdivision).
The Parowan Planning and Zoning Commission spent extended time March 19 vetting a proposed planned‑unit development called Legacy B Estates, a proposed manufactured‑home community near town. Commissioners questioned whether the project would be a mobile‑home park under city code (common ownership with leased pads) or a subdivision of individually owned manufactured‑home lots, and they asked for more documentation before making a recommendation to City Council.
Developer representatives described changes to the latest site plan: fewer lots in the transition area, wider spacing between units, sidewalks, utility easements, designated snow‑storage and drainage areas, and added open space and amenities including pickleball courts. “There's in excess of 50% open space in this park for the common area,” one developer said while walking commissioners through the revised plan.
Commissioners pressed the applicants on several points: whether homes would be permanently affixed to foundations and treated as manufactured housing under city code, how the lease agreement would govern resale and tenant screening, whether lots would be sold or remain under common ownership, parking and pad dimensions, and how snow removal and drainage would be engineered. Planning staff flagged a code constraint: the city’s PUD/subdivision rules do not allow mixing mobile homes and permanent residential dwellings on the same plan. “No planned unit development may incorporate both mobile homes and permanent residential dwellings,” staff said, adding that the project may therefore need to be classified and reviewed as a mobile‑home PUD unless the developer changed the ownership model.
Financial and market questions were raised. Applicants said factory-built units intended for the site would be priced roughly in the $225,000–$275,000 range, and they referenced sample space-rent levels at comparable properties (applicants cited about $500 per month in Idaho examples). Applicants said they plan to limit on-site trailers/boats and enforce appearance and maintenance standards through lease terms.
Commissioners also requested evidence from existing properties the developer operates (photos, manager contact, occupancy history), a complete lease agreement showing eviction/resale mechanics and enforcement “teeth,” and a utility/engineering review that is still in progress. Several commissioners said the ownership model — whether buyers would own the land under their unit or only the structure and lease a pad — was their main concern.
A motion to positively recommend the mobile‑home planned unit development to City Council was made but received no second and therefore died. The Commission did not forward a recommendation at this meeting and asked the applicant to return with the requested lease documentation, examples of comparable parks (photos/virtual tours), and final utility/engineering approvals before the Commission would take a final position.
Next steps: applicant to provide additional documentation and examples; staff and commissioners will review lease language, resale mechanics, and drainage/utility plans before the item is returned for a recommendation to City Council.
